Hi there all,
I’m rebuilding my website i always primarily use with regard to sharing photos with relatives and buddies. I’ve notice a lot of the really cool searching Dynamic Flash gallery templates out there. I like the way in which they interact to be able to mouse clicks as well as fade photos in and out together with different effects. WE notice, however, that web sites can take a time to initially load ; however , they are very quick when moving from photo to image.
My question is this, Do these forms of websites load most of their content for the memory of the browsing computer before browsing begins And also are photos and also such downloaded since you brows
My website could have several hundred pics on it as well as would take permanently to load if it had to completely load in someones system before put on start using them.
With thanks
Usually they’ll insert the interface and something photo, and load the remainder while you look at them.
I think, at present, it’s better to have a more traditional HTML/CSS based gallery (no interface needed), and work with Javascript for outcomes – mainly Lightbox. Are you experiencing any experience within this
Can’t say we do. My first website is very basic.
http: //www. markandtammysworld. com
Using XHTML/JavaScript is a means to go…
Such as:
http: //www. huddletogether. com/projects/lightbox/
Furthermore see LightWindow, which can be pretty fantastic (and occurs run on this favorite framework, Prototype).
Can lightwindow be used in combination with Windows applications or only Mac
Either, it uses javascript.
What you need to know about dynamic elements is that they influence your blog getting indexed by google (they influence not inside a good way).
But conversely if traffic in addition to ranking don’t mean much to you you are free to use the full adobe flash and stuff.
I would need to believe that the search engines are changing within regards to
vibrant page generation. Nearly 98% of webpages now are active. And since
a dynamic page, inside sense of PHP/MySQL and Perl… which are server-side,
are parsed within the server side and delivered to be a " static" internet site (basically).
This content being vibrant, but XHTML is XHTML really can static or dynamic.
The primary issues would often be Javascripting, AJAX, Expensive, frames… things like this.
And so, in this " advanced" get older of client-side control, I just assume the search engines
must be taking some of those things into account when doing ranks. Any
other getting grants this
As long as I know, vibrant pages, when we live saying dynamic’ meaning server-side generated, don’t really get disciplined. The URIs in many cases are not quite consequently natural-looking, which can offer an impact on the keywords will be found for that page, but I’m not sure how important which is, and there are methods for getting around it with mod_rewrite along with other tricks.
For JS and related technologies — that may be still problematic for search engines, because they cannot run a page by way of a browser to review it, they just crawl the reading. This is on the list of reasons why it’s so great to make Javascript transpire through progressive enhancement, rather than defining it as the only solution to do things.
Additionally you download the Lynx browser to receive an idea of how an spiders will check out your pages.
http: //www. vordweb. corp. uk/standards/download_lynx. htm
I’m sure that search engines won’t value it work with a server-side terms. The URLs could be the solely problem. I never see any some others. And yes, the main thing you’ll need to be weary of is actually " hidden content"… stuff unavailable as-is in the actual HTML. Goes intended for Flash, AJAXed things, etc…
I can notice on google one of the pages of a site I did is found – it possesses the format:
blahblah. compage=blahblah& pic=blahblah
so (google at least) apart from seem to have a problem picking up pages with php sort get urls……..
Ferro,
I’ve noticed exactly the same thing.
Maybe it’s turning out to be acceptable now and search engines like google are OK having that.
The problem with such URIs isn’t that they are forced querystrings on all of them, it’s that they are not descriptive usually. They’re going to have ids, such as, rather than words. There are methods to fix that now.
Yes, vibrant URLs are indexable, the primary problem being this difficulty deciphering these folks. That’s where mod_rewrite also comes in.